Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:21:50 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdelibs4 Makefile Message-ID: <20111227092150.GD66519@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EF988C0.2010808@FreeBSD.org> References: <201112241839.pBOIdPlh024053@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111225154525.GA43948@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo839VJRebasTHAb-C8w7G68u2D%2BZHSqwg0f6LoQH8D_0bTg@mail.gmail.com> <20111225163848.GA51484@FreeBSD.org> <4EF988C0.2010808@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 09:58:40AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev ha scritto: > >Per libungif's pkg-descr, it's not just being unencumbered by patents, but > >also "implements a superset of that [giflib's] library's API". > > It's a superset because it doesn't implement the LZW patented compression. Shouldn't it read "subset" in this case then? > >Regardless > >of the possible API and patent issues, what makes libgif a 'preferred' > >solution? > > The fact that they shared the same codebase and now only giflib is > developed (and has also LZW compression). Ah, well, if giflib is currently being developed, and libungif is not (i.e. essentially being abandonware), then I don't have any objection on moving to giflib. Thanks for the insight Alex. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111227092150.GD66519>